[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Bill Pranty on 00:45:27 03/09/07
In Reply to: Re: Thoughts on "Apparent " posted by Vince Lucas
Good mornming all,
I think Vince knows the answer to his own question, but I'll give a few answers anyway. (And Vince, since we've been on cordial terms lately, please don't take this post the wrong way).
For one reason, the FOSRC is the official bird records committee for Florida. There is no other "governing body" to report the bird to. The FOS Field Observations Committee, which prepares both seasonal bird summaries for publication, defers to the FOSRC when megararities are reported. And Audubon has nothing resembling a bird-records committee (as opposed to the Christmas Bird Count editor, or an eBird editor).
For another reason, this apparent Loggerhead Kingbird of the mainland Cuban race will be the first for the ABA Area, and so it is as mega a rarity as you could ask for. (Just ask the 500-700 birders who will descend on Key West this weekend from all over the US and Canada).
I would hope that everybody who has submitted to, who submits to, or who may eventually submit to any records committee understands that their report may get a "no" vote. Don't take it personally. (Most of my own submissions to the FOSRC over the past 20+ years were rejected -- not always wisely IMHO, but what can you do? You take a deep breath and move on.).
A "no" vote doesn't necessarily mean that the ID was wrong, only that the ID was considered refutable, in the opinion of a group of your birding peers. (The "no" vote on the Red-billed Tropicbird certainly falls into this category, as does the woodpecker in David Luneau's video = it could be what it's claimed to be, but it could also be something else).
We all misidentify, so being corrected is something that we should all be used to, and we should all accept as part of the hobby.
I know that members of records committees are called "elitist" (or worse), but there has to be some "official" governing body "policing" the ornithological record. (Otherwise it's not ornithology = bird science). I'm not claiming to be an ornithologist, but I do understand the need for rigorous vetting of bird data, and I don't get (too) upset if one of my reports is rejected, or if the next Red-legged Honeycreeper to show up in Florida is (still) considered a potential escapee.
Whether or not you agree with every decision made made by the FOSRC or ABA CLC, all one has to do is look around to see how _prevalent_ these committees are. I think that there are only three states in the Union that don't have a local review committee (Maine, North Dakota, and Rhode island), so there can be little debate that such committees are needed. And most countries have their own equivalent of the AOU Check-list Committee or the ABA CLC.
I could go on, but I have made my point (and not just here; I've preached this same message on other bird boards for years -- and probably will continue into the next decade or two or three).
There will be those who disagree with me: fine. I disagree with some of you. We're allowed to disagree, especially when we're discussing birds that are difficult to identify, whether backlit tropicbirds or blurry woodpeckers.
Should I be lucky enough to see, hear, photograph, and study the kingbird (and yes, it certainly is that; it's just a matter of which species -- and I have my own opinion on that), then I for one will be submitting something to the FOSRC -- and also talking with the discoverer about writing a formal paper for _North American Birds_.
See you at the Fort on Saturday...
Best regards,
Bill Pranty
Bayonet Point, Florida
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]